5 ms·

Amusing to see those 20-somethings (including H1Bs) arrive with their laptop and spreadsheets. Then interview experienced workers twice their age as how their d

Amusing to see those 20-somethings (including H1Bs) arrive with their laptop and spreadsheets. Then interview experienced workers twice their age as how their duties are redundant. Life changing consequences for the workers.

mschuster91 6y ago
That's the entire point of hiring McKinsey and friends to "announce/order" layoffs. The consultants are the scapegoats on which the workers direct their fury, while the management which explicitly hired the consultants for this gets off scot-free and in many cases is even rewarded for "reducing payroll cost".
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Genuine question, how can any thinking person believe that? It's obvious the company is making the call, it doesn't matter if it's through an intermediary.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > It's obvious the company is making the call, it doesn't matter if it's through an intermediary. Of course it's obvious, but with McKinsey called in, management can deflect blame and claim "it's the consultants that deemed your job being redundant, not us, we only called them in to cut costs"
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Deflect blame from whom? The people who they fired and have no say at all in the company anymore? The people who are already there who feel they may be next? I still don't buy this. The idea that this is some PR exercise seems lousy to me. It makes much more sense that it is a third party arbitration.
- perpetualpatzer 6y ago
  I don't think it's as common to hire consultants to announce layoffs as the Up In The Air / Office Space caricatures lead people to believe. Layoffs are a huge distraction for a business, and so, don't happen except at need. When they do happen, they almost invariably involve losing employees tasked with things the company still needs to do. That leaves a bunch of short term business design problems of how to reassign those tasks to minimize disruption: "We had to lose 30 salespeople, who will cover those sales territories?" "If we got rid of dedicated agile coaches, would product managers have time to plan and run the scrum meeting? If we're able to keep 1, which teams should they work with?" These types of questions can be analysis-heavy, are non recurring, and land on top of normal workloads (meaning executives may not have time to do them themselves), so it makes sense to hire a contractor to work on them.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > When they do happen, they almost invariably involve losing employees tasked with things the company still needs to do. > These types of questions can be analysis-heavy, are non recurring, and land on top of normal workloads (meaning executives may not have time to do them themselves), so it makes sense to hire a contractor to work on them. No one actually does that though, otherwise the people being laid off would not be the poor sods at the bottom of the ladder but the countless layers of middle management. C-level execs rarely give a single flying finger about the people their "decisions" affect, or how the company will fare long term, and that is the point. By the time the consequences of "dumb razor firing" become apparent and the problems untenable, the CEO who had decided on this has long moved on to another company who needed a "savior in need" and pocketed a nice fat bonus for a 20% reduction in payroll.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Everyone thinks they're an experienced worker, everyone thinks they're underpaid, and everyone thinks they're valuable. The reality is most of the workforce is simply not that extraordinary and are unimportant when it comes to the overall business.
- ci5er 6y ago
  Except me, and everyone one else is a jerk. Including you.
- knightofmars 6y ago
  Including all of the leadership telling everyone else they aren't important.
- watwut 6y ago
  I have seen these consultants make their changes and create way more dysfunctional workplace then previously. I mean, "people who were not fired are demotivates not even pretending to work" dysfunctional. I mean, "people in positions not matching their abilities" and "respected managers leaving voluntary cause they don't want to be responsible for this mess".

mschuster91 6y ago

That's the entire point of hiring McKinsey and friends to "announce/order" layoffs. The consultants are the scapegoats on which the workers direct their fury, while the management which explicitly hired the consultants for this gets off scot-free and in many cases is even rewarded for "reducing payroll cost".

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Genuine question, how can any thinking person believe that? It's obvious the company is making the call, it doesn't matter if it's through an intermediary.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > It's obvious the company is making the call, it doesn't matter if it's through an intermediary. Of course it's obvious, but with McKinsey called in, management can deflect blame and claim "it's the consultants that deemed your job being redundant, not us, we only called them in to cut costs"
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Deflect blame from whom? The people who they fired and have no say at all in the company anymore? The people who are already there who feel they may be next? I still don't buy this. The idea that this is some PR exercise seems lousy to me. It makes much more sense that it is a third party arbitration.
perpetualpatzer 6y ago
I don't think it's as common to hire consultants to announce layoffs as the Up In The Air / Office Space caricatures lead people to believe. Layoffs are a huge distraction for a business, and so, don't happen except at need. When they do happen, they almost invariably involve losing employees tasked with things the company still needs to do. That leaves a bunch of short term business design problems of how to reassign those tasks to minimize disruption: "We had to lose 30 salespeople, who will cover those sales territories?" "If we got rid of dedicated agile coaches, would product managers have time to plan and run the scrum meeting? If we're able to keep 1, which teams should they work with?" These types of questions can be analysis-heavy, are non recurring, and land on top of normal workloads (meaning executives may not have time to do them themselves), so it makes sense to hire a contractor to work on them.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > When they do happen, they almost invariably involve losing employees tasked with things the company still needs to do. > These types of questions can be analysis-heavy, are non recurring, and land on top of normal workloads (meaning executives may not have time to do them themselves), so it makes sense to hire a contractor to work on them. No one actually does that though, otherwise the people being laid off would not be the poor sods at the bottom of the ladder but the countless layers of middle management. C-level execs rarely give a single flying finger about the people their "decisions" affect, or how the company will fare long term, and that is the point. By the time the consequences of "dumb razor firing" become apparent and the problems untenable, the CEO who had decided on this has long moved on to another company who needed a "savior in need" and pocketed a nice fat bonus for a 20% reduction in payroll.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Everyone thinks they're an experienced worker, everyone thinks they're underpaid, and everyone thinks they're valuable. The reality is most of the workforce is simply not that extraordinary and are unimportant when it comes to the overall business.

ci5er 6y ago
Except me, and everyone one else is a jerk. Including you.
knightofmars 6y ago
Including all of the leadership telling everyone else they aren't important.
watwut 6y ago
I have seen these consultants make their changes and create way more dysfunctional workplace then previously. I mean, "people who were not fired are demotivates not even pretending to work" dysfunctional. I mean, "people in positions not matching their abilities" and "respected managers leaving voluntary cause they don't want to be responsible for this mess".